Vicki, I think I see what your argument is, but I’m not completely clear on it, so please feel free to correct me if I’ve got it wrong. You believe that marriage is vital to the function of society, correct? Nobody is proposing abolishing marriage (at least nobody here is, although I know there are people out there who think it is an archaic institution that should be abolished).
Your main point to me seems to be:
Our society (and, in fact, practially every society known to man) has determined that it is beneficial to the society as a whole to promote marriage as a permenant union between members of the opposite sex, for the purpose of forming a family unity and raising children.
I’m sorry, that is just where I can’t agree with you at all. My husband and I are not raising children, nor do we ever plan to. That is not the purpose of our marriage. Perhaps in the past that may have been what marriage was all about, but not anymore. At least, not to everyone. You stated that cultural anthropologists have studied marriage in past societies. Why would they need to study that if the role of marriage always been the same over all the years of history? The answer is that it hasn’t. The role of marriage in society has changed over thousands of years. Right now, you are witnessing a change in that role. And I’d feel pretty safe making a bet that it will continue to change long after I’m dead and gone.
You also said:
So, what about divorce, single parents, and childless couples? Our society allows all three, but we do not promote them.
But then you said:
If our society changes the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages, we will not be merely "accepting" same-sex unions, we will be promoting them.
I’m sorry, but I find those two statements to be very contradictory. We allow divorce, but we are not promoting it. We allow single parents, but we are not promoting them. We allow childless couples, but we are not promoting childlessness. But if we allow a same-sex marriage, we would be promoting it? I just don’t understand how you’re making that connection.
We tell children, "One day, when you grow up and get married,...", "One day, when you are a daddy,...", "One day, when you have your own family..." We don't say, "When you grow up and get divorced..."
I completely beg to differ with you. This may be what you have seen and heard in your life, but it is not what I have seen and heard in mine. Once again, we are all different people with different origins, beliefs, backgrounds, values, etc. When I was growing up, what I was told was
not “One day, when you grow up and get married…” As far back as I can remember, what was told me was, “You realize that it is okay not to marry. You don’t ever have to get married.” But I got married anyway, despite what I was told all of my life. Because it was
my choice.
As far as promoting divorce? I know plenty of people who have that planned in to their lives, sad as it sounds. I think society already promotes divorce as an easy out. It has become ingrained in the culture of my generation. I’ve heard numerous times, “You can marry that guy, and if it doesn’t work out, you can always get a divorce.” I’m hard pressed to talk to many people and not hear the words, “My first marriage…” or “My second marriage…” come out of their mouths.
You can even determine at what cost, such as at the cost of not allowing every single member of the society the ability to marry whomever they please. Which takes me back to the 4 restrictions to marriage in our society: you cannot marry (1) a minor, (2) a close relative, (3) a person who is already legal married, and (4) a person of the same sex.
Which takes me back to my argument. I think people should be allowed to do whatever they wish as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. (1) and (2) would cause harm to someone else. (3) would be irrelevant, because if you’re married to more than one person at the same time, you’re not married by definition (if the definition is defined to mean between one man and one woman, or any two consenting individuals—otherwise, we’ll just cross that bridge when we get to it). (4) does not cause harm to anyone else. Therefore, I just don’t see what’s wrong with it.
